On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 21:01 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > I disagree. You can't use flash without a target. We should never
> > offer that command without a target for it to be used with. The user
> > should not need to pull the two together on their own.
>
> Sure you can! I even believe tha
On Sunday 29 November 2009, Michael Schwingen wrote:
> David Brownell wrote:
> > With NAND it's easy to see why they won't use CPU addresses. :)
> >
> > In general, using { bank, sector } addressing gives finer control
> > over the actual chip resources, and is less error prone, even for
> > NOR f
On Sunday 29 November 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > I disagree. You can't use flash without a target. We should never
> > offer that command without a target for it to be used with. The user
> > should not need to pull the two together on their own.
>
> Sure you can! I even believe that there
David Brownell wrote:
> With NAND it's easy to see why they won't use CPU addresses. :)
>
> In general, using { bank, sector } addressing gives finer control
> over the actual chip resources, and is less error prone, even for
> NOR flash. You kind of want to avoid accidentally erasing (or
> even
> I disagree. You can't use flash without a target. We should never
> offer that command without a target for it to be used with. The user
> should not need to pull the two together on their own.
Sure you can! I even believe that there is some support
for this in OpenOCD. The flash chip would
On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 18:47 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > Finally, would it be logical to create the dynamic flash banks commands
> > as subcommands of their relevant target?
> >
> >foo.cpu flash bank bank0 . # but no arg anymore
> >foo.cpu bank0 info # presently, it's 'fla
Øyvind Harboe a écrit :
>> Finally, would it be logical to create the dynamic flash banks commands
>> as subcommands of their relevant target?
>>
>>foo.cpu flash bank bank0 . # but no arg anymore
>>foo.cpu bank0 info # presently, it's 'flash info bank0'
>
> First of all: alt
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009, Ųyvind Harboe wrote:
>> I have seen that some users feel very strongly about erasing
>> particular banks and sectors and writing to these sectors, rather
>> than using addresses. I have never fully understand why
On Sunday 29 November 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> I have seen that some users feel very strongly about erasing
> particular banks and sectors and writing to these sectors, rather
> than using addresses. I have never fully understand why they
> feel so strongly about going the way of banks instead
> Finally, would it be logical to create the dynamic flash banks commands
> as subcommands of their relevant target?
>
> foo.cpu flash bank bank0 . # but no arg anymore
> foo.cpu bank0 info # presently, it's 'flash info bank0'
First of all: although I'm not able to follow all
Hi all,
I used exclamation points in $SUBJECT, because these suggestions will
have drastic user-visible impact -- though the effects can be mitigated.
All of the work done that I have done recently on the command handling
system has established a foundation for migrating the script language to
use
11 matches
Mail list logo
